(a)Except as otherwise provided in this division, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport (1) any controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, or specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in subdivision (h) of Section 11056, or (2) any controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V which is a narcotic drug, unless upon the written prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian licensed
to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for three, four, or five years.
(b)Notwithstanding the penalty provisions of subdivision (a), any person who transports any controlled substances specified in subdivision (a) within this state from one county to another noncontiguous county shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for three, six, or nine years.
(c)For purposes of this section, “transports” means to transport for sale.
(d)This section does not preclude or limit the prosecution of an individual for aiding and abetting the commission of, or conspiring to commit, or acting as an accessory to, any act prohibited by this section.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Melvin Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 14× “The en banc court held that California Health and Safety Code section 11352, which criminalizes a variety of activities related to certain controlled substances identified by reference to other code provisions, is divisible with regard to both its controlled substance…”
Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 9× “The BIA and the IJ found Mielewczyk removable due to his prior state conviction under California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a) for offering to transport heroin.”
Aracely Marinelarena v. William Barr, 930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Marinelarena was charged with conspiracy to commit a felony in violation of California Penal Code § 182(a)(1), namely conspiring to sell and transport a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11352.”
Aracely Marinelarena v. Jefferson Sessions, 869 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 6× “The panel further held that the target crime, sale and transport of a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code § 11352, is overbroad and divisible as to the specific controlled substance.”
People v. Patterson, 778 P.2d 549 (Cal. 1989).
· cites it 4× “For instance, the elements of the crime of transporting a controlled substance bear no resemblance to those underlying the offense of administering such a substance; yet these two offenses are included in the same statute.”
United States v. Neri-Hernandes, 504 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The abstract of judgment identified the offense of conviction as a violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11352, a statute that covers some conduct that would not qualify as a “drug trafficking offense” under the Guidelines.”
United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “at 1119-20 (applying modified categorical approach to question of whether Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11352 violation qualifies as a career-offender predicate offense).”
Gary Bradley v. W.A. Duncan, Warden, 315 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).
“2 Defendant/Appellee Gary Bradley ("Bradley") was arrested and charged with one count of selling cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a).”
Jaime Lazo v. Robert Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “2017) (en banc), held that California Health and Safety Code § 11352 is divisible as to controlled substance.”
United States v. Jason Lee, 704 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “1 based on his two prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code § 11352(a).”
People v. Lee, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7977 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Health and Safety Code section 11352, while including many various types of proscribed conduct as well as substances, does not contain any language equivalent to “under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death.”
United States v. Lomas, 30 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “In 1990, he was convicted of the sale or transportation of cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11352 and sentenced to five years in state prison.”
— Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11352(A) — 1 case
— Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11352(a) — 26 cases
United States v. Melvin Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017).
“The en banc court held that California Health and Safety Code section 11352, which criminalizes a variety of activities related to certain controlled substances identified by reference to other code provisions, is divisible with regard to both its controlled substance…”
Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2009).
“The BIA and the IJ found Mielewczyk removable due to his prior state conviction under California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a) for offering to transport heroin.”
Gary Bradley v. W.A. Duncan, Warden, 315 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).
“2 Defendant/Appellee Gary Bradley ("Bradley") was arrested and charged with one count of selling cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11352(a).”
United States v. Jason Lee, 704 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2012).
“1 based on his two prior convictions under California Health and Safety Code § 11352(a).”
United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2008).
“at 1119-20 (applying modified categorical approach to question of whether Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11352 violation qualifies as a career-offender predicate offense).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.